I hate to drag out this conversation, but I feel it's important for folks to understand how a slick operator like Park works. He may in fact be a talented surgeon, but that does not mean that he is incapable of using a degree of deception in order to line his own pockets.
To actually
see Steven Park's bias, it's important to have a bit of critical thinking and analyze what he
actually says, and more importantly what he is
not saying. Keep in mind that the quote from his book was not an accident. He
carefully worded it to bring his readers to a specific pre-determined conclusion or "mindset". For instance, let's take a look at the bolded quote by Dr. Park from a previous post:
Quote:Regardless, I strongly recommend trying and exhausting all conservative measures first before attempting more aggressive options like surgery. For some people, conservative options like not eating late or changing sleep positions can produce dramatic results."
First, please notice that he is giving "lip-service" to the fact that surgical solutions should not be considered as a first option. If he
didn't make this statement, he'd be seen by most people as a "quack". When attempting to bring his readers to a certain mindset, he must first sound "reasonable" by giving them a factoid that's a
very obvious fact -- a fact that
any reasonable person would have to agree with. Most reasonable people would think "
Yeah, of course, surgery should never be the first option under any circumstance" (the guy sets himself up as
seeming very reasonable to readers by stating such an
obvious fact that they will agree with). He must build that foundation of confidence first.
If he were to start off by giving an outrageous statement that most people would find to be absurd, people would stop reading right then and there. By making a series of "reasonable-sounding" statements first, he gets his readers into the habit of trusting him, since "
he's sounded so reasonable in other areas, so his other statements must be reasonable as well". This particular method of "trust-building" is common manipulative tool of con-men.
Second, please note what he is
not saying in this statement. He never mentions CPAP in this statement at all. In fact, he purposefully does not mention CPAP therapy in his examples of "
conservative measures". Ask yourself:
why is that? There's a reason, and the reason is that CPAP is the gold standard for most sleep apnea patients. It works well for most people who continue to use it, and he knows that. But the end goal of promoting his surgery over CPAP would necessitate that he stack the deck of other "solutions" in a way that doesn't even give CPAP as one of the optional "conservative measures". Instead,
he completely omits the most popular solution (CPAP). Hmm....
Also, what are the "conservative measures" that he gives as examples? Let's see... they are
1) not eating late and
2) changing sleep positions. Seriously? That's the first two "conservative measures" he mentions as alternatives to surgery? What about CPAP? Why in the world would he not mention CPAP? It's the absolute, hands-down most popular "conservative measure" for treatment of sleep apnea! I'll tell you why-- it's because he's using slick con-man methods to bring you to a per-determined conclusion. By introducing other "conservative measures" like
changing your diet or
your sleep position, he's essentially wanting people who've tried those two options
unsuccessfully to come to the conclusion that surgery is the logical next step for them. No mention of CPAP here. Sound fishy? Sure does to me.
And offering two "conservative measures" that are hardly considered by knowledgeable people to be "solid treatments for sleep apnea" is setting up a straw-man argument. Yes, don't eat late and try a different sleeping position, by all means! But are those two items serious "sleep apnea treatments"? No, of course not. They
can help to some degree, but if you truly have sleep apnea, no amount of "not eating late" or "changing sleep positions" will eliminate the vast majority sleep apnea events the way CPAP does.
Just because this doctor "sounds" reasonable in some areas is no reason to cast facts aside and be unwilling to realize that he is trying to steer patients towards the direction of surgical solutions - specifically
his surgical solution. The arguments are slick and many people are fooled by the con-man style logical progression. Yep, you can find quotes all day long from him where it "appears" like he's "okay" with CPAP treatment. Again, to be a successful con-man, a person must tell mostly a bunch of truths to gain your "confidence" prior to introducing the pre-determined solution that will "solve all your problems".
The sad part is that these types of arguments are most successful in the people who are desperate for anything that gives them a slight glimpse of hope. Their own inflated desire and desperation for
something --
anything to work opens them up to these types of arguments. As long as there are desperate people, there will be con-men willing to take advantage of their vulnerabilities. And that type of deception isn't limited to the shell-game operators on the street; it exists in just about every profession, including the "professionals" who wear white coats.
Caveat emptor.